The dust at this busy recycling plant is pervasive and the steady noise of hoppers and conveyor belts makes this a challenging environment to work in. The facility in Rainham, east London is owned by Sharp Group, a family-run skip and waste management firm. Along the conveyor belts runs everything you could imagine, from shoes, to old VHS cassettes and blocks of concrete. The team here processes up to 280,000 tonnes of mixed recycling every year with 24 agency workers on its rapid conveyor belts. This is a hazardous industry.

Language interpretation is a compositional process, in which the meaning of more complex linguistic structures is inferred from the meaning of their parts. Large language models possess remarkable language interpretation capabilities and have been successfully applied to interpret questions by mapping them to SPARQL queries. An open question is how systematic this interpretation process is. Toward this question, in this paper, we propose a benchmark for investigating to what extent the abilities of LLMs to interpret questions are actually compositional. For this, we generate three datasets of varying difficulty based on graph patterns in DBpedia, relying on Lemon lexica for verbalization. Our datasets are created in a very controlled fashion in order to test the ability of LLMs to interpret structurally complex questions, given that they have seen the atomic building blocks. This allows us to evaluate to what degree LLMs are able to interpret complex questions for which they "understand" the atomic parts. We conduct experiments with models of different sizes using both various prompt and few-shot optimization techniques as well as fine-tuning. Our results show that performance in terms of macro $F_1$ degrades from $0.45$ over $0.26$ down to $0.09$ with increasing deviation from the samples optimized on. Even when all necessary information was provided to the model in the input, the $F_1$ scores do not exceed $0.57$ for the dataset of lowest complexity. We thus conclude that LLMs struggle to systematically and compositionally interpret questions and map them into SPARQL queries.

Recent work has aimed to capture nuances of human behavior by using LLMs to simulate responses from particular demographics in settings like social science experiments and public opinion surveys. However, there are currently no established ways to discuss or evaluate the quality of such LLM simulations. Moreover, there is growing concern that these LLM simulations are flattened caricatures of the personas that they aim to simulate, failing to capture the multidimensionality of people and perpetuating stereotypes. To bridge these gaps, we present CoMPosT, a framework to characterize LLM simulations using four dimensions: Context, Model, Persona, and Topic. We use this framework to measure open-ended LLM simulations' susceptibility to caricature, defined via two criteria: individuation and exaggeration. We evaluate the level of caricature in scenarios from existing work on LLM simulations. We find that for GPT-4, simulations of certain demographics (political and marginalized groups) and topics (general, uncontroversial) are highly susceptible to caricature.